Forum:Unaffiliation
Back in November of 2011, there was an affiliation forum with Zelda Informer. In short, we affiliated with Zelda Informer, the reason they wanted affiliation was because Zelda Wiki stopped affiliating with them or whatever. In most cases, affiliation entitles a link on the main pages to the other site. You can see on their main page that they no longer have a wiki tab. You can see in the image of their main page that they used to have a wiki tab. Personally, I feel we should end the affiliation, seeing as they already have, and without letting the affiliate know. Granted, there wasn't much, just a link to each site, but the fact that they removed the link to us means they no longer care for affiliation. Additionally, although it doesn't matter, I had an account on the forum for a while, and the members pretty much hated Zeldapedia and they were all generally rude, and that's coming from me, the queen of the snarks. I feel we should just remove the link from the main page to finalize the end of the affiliation. If they aren't going to link to us there's no point to link to them. – Jazzi (talk) 12:34, June 27, 2013 (UTC) :We've had pretty much zero interaction since establishing the affiliation, so even if they hadn't removed their links without contacting us first, I would have seen the whole thing as pretty pointless. So yeah, I agree. Jedimasterlink (talk) 19:12, June 27, 2013 (UTC) ::Get rid of them ungrateful tossers. --AuronKaizer ''' 11:10, June 28, 2013 (UTC) :::While I'm not much in the "know" around here lately, I think it is safe to say that by ZI removing all acknowledgement of us from their site, they have already unaffiliated, whether it be official or not. I'm of the opinion that ZP should in response remove all acknowledgement of them. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC) :Removed them from the Site Notice part of the main page and changed the page on them. – Jazzi (talk) 14:10, July 8, 2013 (UTC) ::One thing I want to point out here is that Zeldapedia was linked to on April 29 on this page http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/ura-zelda-recreation-project-is-completely-canceled#disqus_thread at ZI. Again, I know I'm not very active here as of late so I don't want to get overly involved with this kind of stuff. And I know I already put in my support for unaffiliation after reading Jäzzi's post, but I figured I would throw this in here in case it changes anyone's stance on the issue. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:26, July 18, 2013 (UTC) :This isn't entirely true. http://www.zeldainformer.com/skyward-sword/walkthrough/chapter01 As you can see, links to Zelda Pedia are scattered throughout our Skyward Sword Walkthrough. We didn't "drop" anything, the wiki Link at the top of the site was not being "clicked" - so it was a waste of space, but we went a step beyond that and integrated you into our most complete content on the site. We were then planning to integrate links into TWW HD and ALBW, but you know, people make assumptions without talking to us... :Nice to see you guys trash talk us without actually consulting us on the matter. Real mature and all... Nathanial Rumphol-Janc (talk) 19:54, July 24, 2013 (UTC) Clearly this was a misunderstanding then. Let's not point fingers. The only thrash talk has was from our self confessed Queen of the Snarks. We are not trying to slander you're site in anyway and calling us immature is not going to help relations. I do loathe internet arguments. It is true we should have consulted you before unaffilitating and I regret not getting involved in this conversation sooner to suggest that. Given the fact that we misunderstood our sites affiliation we must rationally decide if any of us still want to be affiliated. Oni Link 22:08, July 24, 2013 (UTC) :I guess I never saw this forum post but if I did I would have brought up the integration into the SS walkthrough. If I do recall correctly from the original discussion that was going to be the major integration point in the first place. From what I saw they linked to our site just like they said they planned to do. So it appears to me that a decision was made in haste and without discussion with the correct parties. It is of my opinion that we rectify the situation just as quick as it occurred. --Birdman5589 (talk) 22:16, July 24, 2013 (UTC) ::The only "trash talk" was me stating that a good portion of the forum users were rude. I'm pretty rude myself and being able to identify them as rude, which I don't often do because I'm normally just as rude as the next person, is something. However, I truly feel that if you're going to link to us within your walkthroughs you should link to us on your main page. ''Many''''' of the affiliations that I have come across have had links on both sites main pages. Regardless of whether the link was clicked or not, having the link there does show that it visibly expresses the affiliation in the most visible place. – Jazzi (talk) 00:06, July 25, 2013 (UTC) :::The only trash talk wasn't you, and I wasn't offended you down talked our forums crowd - the forum is pretty much an entirely different crowd from the people who view the actual site. That forum crowd help found Metroid Wiki and were big behind Zelda Wiki - they are not aware of the politics and the reasoning that we do not associate with them presently. The trash talk I referred to was one of your users calling us "ungrateful tossers". :::What you are thinking of is the standard affiliation, which isn't really what this affiliation was. Especially since, given the restrictions of Wikia, there was no way for you guys to add a permanent Link to our site on every page of your site, let alone on your index. The only "link" was via announcements and news posts, rather than a standard link (I could be wrong, but I never noticed one). When we had a "link" to the wiki at the top, it was visible on over 300 pages and 6,000 news posts. That wasn't the same case here, and we had to accept that. So, instead, we focused on the direct benefits - IE, integrating the wiki into our content, as that will drive people who want to know more to the wiki, and in return, you would link that said content occasionally as a promotion - sort of firing traffic back and forth in that manner. :::It is true we talked about other potential promotion ideas beyond that, but nothing seemed to come to fruition. That being said, we were still supportive of ZP as it stood, and while I may have reacted a bit harshly, you have to understand where I cam from. I hear from a third party that ZP terminated the affiliation without talking to us, then when I check out the discussion the first things I see are a couple remarks down playing us, and then accusations we removed the primary agreement links that created the affiliation. :::The idea of this was always to be more than just some standard Link exchange - it was to cross promote eachother and fester bigger communities at eachother's sites, instead of just link exchanging in general. Unfortunately, that never came to fruition beyond the walkthrough stuff. I was just a bit a in shock is all. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc (talk) 03:25, July 25, 2013 (UTC) ::::Now that I see where you were coming from, your shock is perfectly understandable. I apologize for not clarifying what was going on between us before throwing in my support. That last paragraph -- the part about cross-promoting each other -- was the part I was hoping to see more of when we started the affiliation. Assuming you still want to be affiliated with us after this debacle, perhaps we could discuss how to do that, especially with ALBW and TWW HD on the horizon. Jedimasterlink (talk) 06:14, July 26, 2013 (UTC) It is clear that there was a misunderstanding. We believed you had terminated the affiliation without telling us. We don't need to delve into the mistakes that were made or what we were doing. The question remains is that, giving everything that has happened, do we still want to be affiliated? Oni Link 09:21, July 25, 2013 (UTC) :To be honest, I don't think the question remains on our end if should be affiliated. We broke off our part based on an emotional decision instead of actually talking to ZI. If anything the question should be does ZI want to remain associated with us after we clearly demonstrated that the most active and vocal part of the community can't play well with others or talk with outside parties to resolve issues. We were the ones that were taking advantage of the situation. If the issue of having the wiki be linked in their permanent navigation pane, we should have link to ZI under the Community tab of the navigation bar. The most logical way for ZI to link to us was within the walkthroughs since they can point people to the article site for a particular item, boss, location, etc. instead of going into details in the walkthrough. The most logical way for us to link to them was to add links to the blips we put in the Zelda News section (since ZI is a news site). I think the matter should simply come down to us correcting our mistake unless ZI says that they no longer want to be associated with us (which I think they have every right to make that decision based on the situation). --Birdman5589 (talk) 12:18, July 25, 2013 (UTC) ::As Xykeb said in the skype group, both parties did not handle this situation very well. If ZI is willing to continue affiliating with Zeldapedia, that's great, and we can continue the affiliation. From what I saw, the link to the wiki was gone, and I assumed that the affiliation was over. I did not bother checking the posts, and that was my mistake. As you said, we can't have a link to ZI in every page, we can however put the link in the navigation bar, but that will only be in the default skin, not both skins. I don't see this being a matter of the "vocal part of the community can't play well with others", I see it more so being a matter of resolving something quickly to make sure it's resolved. This entire thing was a misunderstanding, and, if ZI forgives us and wants to continue the affiliation, that's cool. – Jazzi (talk) 13:36, July 25, 2013 (UTC) :::I didn't use the best word choice with comment about the "vocal part of the community can't play well with others". I meant something along the lines of it likely appeared to ZI that we were difficult to deal with based on the earlier discussion but that it is just a mistake that can be resolved. I think Jazzi did a better job of summing up what my point actually was. --Birdman5589 (talk) 22:11, July 25, 2013 (UTC) So are we just going to let this sit here or are we going to take some action? --Birdman5589 (talk) 21:59, July 29, 2013 (UTC) I guess unless someone from Zelda Informer turns up to discuss it then the affiliation is over. Unless someone feels like contacting them to alert someone that the affiliation is still willing on our end. Oni Link 23:17, July 29, 2013 (UTC)